821–830 of 851 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Require code to be signed by a certificate issued to verified individuals by the government. Prosecute individuals who produce the illegal code.
tell that to an Iranian who wants to make a gay dating app please
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Require code to be signed by a certificate issued to verified individuals by the government. Prosecute individuals who produce the illegal code.
Which government?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what do you want to ensure: that grandma only installs malware on her phone via mistakes she is individually responsible for , or that she doesn't install malware on her phone? Maybe for the abstract 'grandma' you would take the first option. But for someone you personally care about, you're not going to choose the option that predictably ends with her being harmed, even if it will be her own fault when it happen…
You may notice we don’t cover all power outlets because kids (or grandma) may stick their fingers in them either. I trust them not to do that. Then again, if iOS has a setting that ‘enables’ the unsafe app store I’m confident grandma won’t reach it since it’s hidden behind the actual passcode, not a fingerprint.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh.. yeah, malicious actors will definitely have easy pickings with the outdated iBook I connected to a firewalled internet-only wifi AP for an hour or so, and haven't powered on in close to a year. Perfect opportunity for the elite hackers that were just chomping at the bit for me to connect an outdated device to the internet, that doesn't have access to my LAN or anything else of mine. You understand anyone, anywhe…
> haven't powered on in close to a year. Didn't you just say you were viewing that website from the iBook but yet it hasn't been turned on in over year? So which is it? Are you actively using that computer or are you just using it as a strawman to prove some orthogonal point.. > Unless every single piece of software on every piece of hardware on their network is fully patched and up to date, and doesn't contain any z…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you misunderstood my question. I'm asking whether you think the law should let Toyota get away with it.
Whatever the law I would like to be would depends on whether I'm Toyota or I'm the customer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It works like this: 1. Make the game require resources to play This has many names: food, energy, stamina, etc. The fundamental concept is virtually identical in all cases though. It represents how much fun players can have. Once they run out, they can't play anymore. 2. Use timers to rate-limit the player's progression Distribute resources periodically. These timers place an upper limit to how quickly players can pr…
I've tried to play a few games that do that. As soon as I see that dynamic, I think to myself... What idiot thinks this is fun? What am I a mouse in a Skinner box pushing a f*king lever? Then I stop playing and delete the game. It amazes me that people keep going with the game like they can't see the little mouse maze they're in. Is there a name in the psychological literature for this type of lack of awareness?
That's exactly how the game companies view the people who play their Skinner's box simulato-- their games. They deliberately design their games like this. They use the same psychological terminology. They design "reward schedules". They wire the reward button to the player's credit card and make players compete to see who can press it more.
> It amazes me that people keep going with the game like they can't see the little mouse maze they're in.
Yeah, addiction sucks. The games are designed to form habits in players via the almighty timers. I've been down that rabbit hole before, there were people in my gaming groups who literally set up alarms at 3 AM in order to do little bullshit daily game tasks. They exist precisely to get players addicted to the rewards. You can spend hundreds of dollars on a mobile game before you realize the truths I described above.
A sufficiently addicted player is indistinguishable from a bot. It's not that hard to write one and they can't detect it statistically because of their own progression rate limits. Bots are an excellent treatment for addiction to these exploitative games.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So I am going to ask, how is this different from PS/Xbox/etc? Game consoles are specific-purpose computing devices: they play video games with a secondary use of running other entertainment apps (netflix). Phones are general purpose computing devices: they are use to do practically anything that a computer can do; check email, look up navigation, buy things online, check bank balance, create and edit photos/videos.…
I'm not necessarily in favour of Apple here, but I do not find this to be a compelling argument. "General-purpose" is an artificial distinction. The idea of "general-purpose" devices do not exist in any legal sense. >Game consoles are specific-purpose computing devices: they play video games with a secondary use of running other entertainment apps (netflix). This is a circular argument. Game consoles are "specific-pu…
That's basically the entire purpose of court decisions: to draw a line in the sand regarding what behavior is allowed. This is free speech; that is not. This is an illegal search; that is not. This is cruel & unusual punishment; that is not. This is tortuous negligence; that is not. So yes, I am drawing a line exactly where I think it should be.
The alternative is that there is no legal distinction between computing devices. So software in a car, laundry machine, POS terminal, phone, laptop, smart light, etc all share the same rules. So if a Windows laptop must be able to install arbitrary software, then Toyota needs allow for the same in their cars. And if Apple can lock down installation of software on their devices, then Dell is allowed to do the same (and if that's the case, can Intel do the same and only run certain code?).
A legal classification here is, IMHO, the preferred outcome of this case. Whatever the decision made here is, it will have very far reaching implications on technology. Though, if the case were to say that all computing systems are the same, I'd prefer Apple to lose and all computer systems be forced open, than allowed to be closed. Since having cheap video game consoles is not really worth the cost to society of allowing for locked down computer systems.
> If banking apps and Photoshop are what makes a computer "general-purpose", then we'll see banking apps and Photoshop banned from platforms.
Also, my argument is whether or not these types of apps "make sense," as in, a customer base exists for such apps on said platform that there is the market pressure to create one. Not whether not such apps are "allowed." It's certainly allowable to make such apps for the Xbox, there's just not a market to do so; it doesn't jibe with customers perceived uses of said devices. Customers want to check their bank account on their iPhones; they have no desire to do so on their Xbox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> when there is a perfectly good alternative There is very little cost in simply preventing Apple from taking so many intentionally anti-competitive actions. It is not about forcing Apple to write software. Instead it is about preventing them from spending so much effort and trying to remove other people's ability to install other app stores. Allowing other app stores, really would not be a huge burden on Apple, and…
I appreciate the back and forth, I really do. > Instead it is about preventing them from spending so much effort and trying to remove other people's ability to install other app stores. I think we are coming at this from 2 separate sets of foundational assumptions. I’m of the camp that companies are free to make devices and we are free to buy or not buy them. If we don’t like how they operate, we buy a competitor who…
I agree that there are some other "free market solutions" that could work.
The example that I gave, which would absolutely be a free market solution, would be if Fortnite, and other major companies, like facebook, banded together to build easy to use jailbreaking software, and to use their companies to try and convince a large critical mass of people to jailbreak their phone.
That could work. But I am worried about the government intervention, that Apple would try to engage in, to stop this free market solution, via lawsuits that they would inevitably use against this free market answer.
But lots of companies, acting together, to help everyone jailbreak their phone, so that, hopely half, or a large amount of users, now are in a position where they can easily install other app stores, would be a reasonably free market way of solving all of this.
When there is enough critical mass of users doing this, those major companies could then remove/ban their app from the Apple app store, so that basically everyone else has to follow along as well, and then basically everyone is outside of Apple's control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> haven't powered on in close to a year. Didn't you just say you were viewing that website from the iBook but yet it hasn't been turned on in over year? So which is it? Are you actively using that computer or are you just using it as a strawman to prove some orthogonal point.. > Unless every single piece of software on every piece of hardware on their network is fully patched and up to date, and doesn't contain any z…
Yeah, I went and downloaded TenFourFox and then went to HN. Not going to going to respond any further than this because you're obviously just a troll who can't discuss a subject in good faith.
And this tone is good faith? lol, OK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate the back and forth, I really do. > Instead it is about preventing them from spending so much effort and trying to remove other people's ability to install other app stores. I think we are coming at this from 2 separate sets of foundational assumptions. I’m of the camp that companies are free to make devices and we are free to buy or not buy them. If we don’t like how they operate, we buy a competitor who…
> If we don’t like how they operate, we buy a competitor who does what we want. I agree that there are some other "free market solutions" that could work. The example that I gave, which would absolutely be a free market solution, would be if Fortnite, and other major companies, like facebook, banded together to build easy to use jailbreaking software, and to use their companies to try and convince a large critical ma…